Concept Henosis Polycarbonate Version

I think the more important question to ask is: Why did such a concept get selected when yours didn't?

You can blame everyone else but yourself, but when you do that you sound like a sore loser (noted on that same cg-cars.com thread, I see). The question perhaps comes down to the brief and how well you addressed it.

It is not suggestive to do so in the theme which more than half never follow anyway. ... i wanted to go into the category of performance two seater

I'd say this might be where you didn't meet with the judges' approval. You apparently disregarded the brief. And the brief is suggestive of efficient transportation solutions. Size isn't the issue; "environmental awareness, social harmony, interactive mobility and economic efficiency" are the issues.

Your design doesn't realistically address any of them from my perspective (beyond throwing a bunch of buzzwords around). You chased the typical car designer wannabe hawt "performance two seater" ... along with probably 90% of all the other entrants. B-o-r-i-n-g.

In the end Peugeot isn't going to care. Nor are most other designers. But you obviously do. So rather than getting upset and posting sour grapes comments, I'd recommend you pull back and look at it more objectively.

It's easy to get upset. I think your execution (renderings/animation) are really nice, but the design itself doesn't come off as anything that I'd consider exceptionally well designed or appealing. It's a design competition, not a rendering competition. If you want some harsh feedback to point out some reasons why the judges might have skipped past your entry:

“IMAGINE THE PEUGEOT IN THE WORLDWIDE MEGALOPOLIS OF TOMORROW”

Create a Concept Car which is designed to evolve within the cities of the future, whilst retaining the key values of the 21st century. The projects should bear Peugeot's stylistic codes and must contain the following four aspects included in this design competition: environmental awareness, social harmony, interactive mobility and economic efficiency.

While I agree theres a certain level of BS involved in most auto design, I don't see ANY way your car conforms to criteria such as this. It sounds like they're looking for a futuristic highly urban eco friendly solution. That means looking at the way that people in the future will interact with this vehicle. You've designed a sporty future race car that looks like you can't even get into it because of how deep that surface overhangs the door/pod!

Your renderings are TOO busy. You've created a visual blitzkrieg that makes it incredibly difficult to understand what makes this design unique, what makes it award worthy other then it's shape.

If your complaint is "well my renderings are great, so I should have qualified" then you need to rethink how design works. A poorly rendered but smart idea will always win judges over more than a super polished turd. You seem to think the contest is a joke but I have to say the last few years have had some very serious competition and some really nice winners. That entry you posted earlier might have some bad renderings but at least I can see where it gets at the idea of being an urban 4 seater.

And overusing buzz words like "light weight carbon nano tube polished aluminum alloy" is one of those things that if anyone ever asked you in real life what it meant you'd probably respond "oh its a combination of words I found on the internet because I didn't want to just say it's made of metal."

If you get upset over every design competition you don't win you'll never learn from your designs and you won't ever win one. @#$@#$, I spent 4 months on a competition entry and I wound up not even ENTERING because of a Microsoft website bug! It sucks to not get picked - it sucks even worse not to be able to enter because of someones crappy HTML skills!

Car design is a mostly miserable area to be in. Theres a few super stars and the rest of the designers wind up working on mini-van cup holders. You should enter competitions like this because you ENJOY designing your entry. If you get picked as a finalist or win a prize it's just further validation.

Pretty much how i suspected, i don't see anything special or interesting in those entries except maybe 1 or 2 of them...the rest look like works done by high school students, majority of them seem less practical and un-innovative with no follow up on the theme more than my entry...nothing new its been that way ever since.

Ah yes, @#$@#$ those high school students and their clean forms and presentations!

You got some weird taste, you are a product designer maybe thats why your view of design is different from view of automotive designer, you see function in form but i see form in function...the only clean forms and presentation that i see are by "Stylight" and "Seed by Peugeot"

I didn't make it to the first 30 either. I might be posting my design in the forthcoming days.

There are some awfull designs that made it in the last 27. The added explanation is even worse in some cases. I'm not saying I should have made it to the last 30, I didn't have the time to design an interior and my explanation could have been better as well. But I have seen multiple entries on the internet that are better than a couple of these last 27. Anyway I'm proud of my design and gained experience with the project. Better luck next time

1) Module - The aesthetics aren't impressing me, and I wish the video showed how the modules worked, but I like the concept.

2) Peugeot 888 - Like the aesthetics and functionality, and the explanation is straight-forward and reasonable.

3) Streamlife - Nice aesthetics; has a Peugeot quality to it imo. Could have pushed the brief harder (and the excuse for fat tires is really lame and contradicts the purpose).

4) Opus - Aesthetics are okay (really not liking those wing-things). The designer is aware of the latest solar cell research, so points for that.

5) Rugir - Interesting aesthetics. Wish less time had gone into the video and more time had gone into addressing the brief.

6) OPENA - Okay aesthetics. Doesn't address the brief. Next.

7) Peugeot Stylight - Decent aesthetics, but another concept that doesn't seem to really address the brief. Again with the fat, fuel-inefficient tires. Wish it at least looked more nature inspired.

8) Peugeot Rayo - Nice aesthetics, but another one that seems to pay lip-service to the brief. Give it points for drawing on Peugeot design language (always a smart thing since it's their competition).

9) MoVille - Unusual solution. Appreciate the aerodynamic concern (even if the use of the teardrop shape is inappropriate, as oriented). Nice job addressing the brief; mentions things lots of other designers should have included, afaic.

10) ego - Smart solution well articulated. Aesthetics could have been less clunky (especially in the back), but it's not a huge issue to me.

11) GLOBE - Odd-looking solution that has some issues. 'nuff said.

12) Seed by Peugeot - Clever solution. Not the most aesthetically pleasing object, but the fact the designer thought beyond the object and showed how the vehicle might be "parked" is a big plus in my book. Products don't exist in a vacuum.

13) OXO - More unusual aesthetics to my Western eyes, but there are some interesting cultural things going on here (in particular the willingness to relinquish vehicle control by phone). Wish it had addressed the brief more.

14) P.R.O - Another "make it look hawt" vehicle that essentially - from what I'm reading - ignores the brief. This is just aesthetic masturbation, afaic.

15) Peugeot Alegro - I like the aesthetics. Has an insect quality to it that I appreciate. Wish the write-up sounded like the designer did some real research into the problems. With all the "electric motors in wheels" stuff, you'd think it was new tech and not something you could read about in the 80's.

16) xtreet - Interesting aesthetics; nice to see a different 2-seat layout. The translated write-up leaves quite a bit to be desired though; not very much attention to the brief.

17) Peugeot 50x - Decent aesthetics. And the write-up is better than most. Again with the fat, fuel-inefficient tires which effectively negate some of the cool stuff mentioned in the brief.

18) Peugeot Blade - If you want to do a hawt musclecar (with what looks like propeller propulsion - also see pics 4 & 5), this is the write-up that gets you past that brief. Give this person points for thinking.

19) Peugeot Magnet - amateurish form. Reading the explanation for how the propulsion system worked it occurred to me that designers should explain stuff like this with images and not words. "The electrical engine provides the electromagnetic force to the magnetic tubes inserted in wheels." - huh? If "electric engine" means battery and electric motor, then in this case it isn't necessary since all that's needed is the battery (to generate the field) and some electronics (to switch portions of it "on" and "off" just the way maglev trains work). This person missed an excellent opportunity to involve city infrastructure issues ... if I understand that mess of words correctly.

20) facile - The beauty of this design is that I didn't have to translate it to understand what the primary solution is.

21) [E cube] - Interesting aesthetics. I like the "Transformer" quality (similar to other designs). And I like the efficient front tires. But I hate the fuel-sucking rear "mono wide wheel" which makes no sense to me whatsoever. They don't have to scrap the aesthetics to have it make sense (see the above mention of morphable tires). I want to like this more, but that and some other things prevent that.

22) RD - Nice-looking, but I'd rather have seen more design and less hawt video. Next.

23) Echo - Respectable aesthetics. And I can't tell, but it almost looks like the "fat tire" look is faked with big wrap-around fenders. Smart. The write up is intelligent. Wish it had gone further though. A single sentence about "green resources" doesn't cut it, afaic.

25) Peugeot Verde - Another interesting "Transformer" form. The safety angle is relatively unique and appreciated, but it generally doesn't address the brief very well.

26) Peugeot 1009 Concept - Decent aesthetics. Doesn't really say or do anything. And the "made of natural materials / fibers and recycable" isn't communicated at all in the images. Looks like just another shiny vehicle concept to me. Next.

27) Vision - Another entry into the make a "hawt supercar thang with fat tires" category. A shame. It's a nice-looking vehicle. With a little thought I bet this aesthetic could be married to some smart, relevant solutions. Too bad the effort didn't get that far.

Ah yes, @#$@#$ those high school students and their clean forms and presentations!

You got some weird taste, you are a product designer maybe thats why your view of design is different from view of automotive designer, you see function in form but i see form in function...the only clean forms and presentation that i see are by "Stylight" and "Seed by Peugeot"

I see what Cyberdemon sees. Maybe that's why we're professionals and you're ... a student. When you're a professional automotive designer, you can call yourself one. Until then...

csven: i never said i was professional, I’m not even in car design school to begin with because i can’t afford it, my education is self tought so my apologies if im not specific or right on the spot with terminology or proper material categorization . What i ment, that in my opinion based on my experience is that car design and product design are not two same things...so my views of something that looks good may be negative to some who comes from a product design area. Aesthetics found in product design that make it work and pop, are different to those found in car design surfacing.

Ok ill put it this way, my entry is @#$@#$ and it didn’t deserve the top 30 selection...happy now?

Ah yes, @#$@#$ those high school students and their clean forms and presentations!

You got some weird taste, you are a product designer maybe thats why your view of design is different from view of automotive designer, you see function in form but i see form in function...the only clean forms and presentation that i see are by "Stylight" and "Seed by Peugeot"

Actually I'm an industrial designer with a year of experience on a General Motors sponsored project, not to mention a massive car entusiast. I only see function in form? Stop with the design school gobbelty gook. I love form for forms sake.

You're very quick to criticize everyone else on the stance of "their work is worse then mine, I should have won!" without any real justification.

I agree there are more then a handful of crappy entrys - but looking at your project I think your sketches were probably the best thing you had going. Your sketches were really nice - and I don't see the intent of the sketches making it into the chrome plated final design.

The reflections on your surfaces are SO overcomplicated that it makes it virtually impossible to read the form. The back comes off smooth and flowing while your front grille is an awkward and tight chamfer. The two form languages look exclusive from one another. Also does the car have a windshield? Because right now it comes off as the car being made of glass (or carbon nanotube aluminum alloy)

There is SO much happening underneath your front wheels in that suspension area I cant tell if thats a surface or if you were using some kind of wavy water texture as a reflection map. My eye keeps getting drawn into that suspension area but then it gets confused because it's so busy! There isn't a single matte surface in your renderings besides those tires. If you had rendered the car the same way you had rendered your drawings and used a cleaner lighting setup to evaluate your surface quality I might think differently about the design.

If you want to call yourself a "professional" car designer learn how to use Autostudio and start to understand the fundamentals of surfaces. Until then consider peoples critiques. I guarantee you if you showed this to a professional "car" designer you'd recieve plenty of criticism. I sit next to an ex VW designer. Do you want me to ask him what he thinks? Oh wait, hes a product designer now, he clearly doesn't understand car design. :worried:

Cyberdemon: So as i understand the material is the problem here, i guess i should never had went with chrome then. Alright i will try to re-render this concept with say polycarbonate plastic materials this time, so it's better to understand the forms, and i would also like your VW designer friend to look at it then for some feedback.

"If you want to call yourself a "professional" car designer learn how to use Autostudio "
I would love to but i could't find car modeling tutorial on it, theres very little tutorials for this program, and full on courses arnt available in my area. So i have to resort to polymodeling for now, im not in need of class A - surfacing for now.

csven: i never said i was professional, I’m not even in car design school to begin with because i can’t afford it, my education is self tought so my apologies if im not specific or right on the spot with terminology or proper material categorization . What i ment, that in my opinion based on my experience is that car design and product design are not two same things...so my views of something that looks good may be negative to some who comes from a product design area. Aesthetics found in product design that make it work and pop, are different to those found in car design surfacing.

Ok ill put it this way, my entry is @#$@#$ and it didn’t deserve the top 30 selection...happy now?

And I didn't say you claimed to be a professional. However, you did infer you were an "automotive designer" in the post to which I responded (if only a student studying automotive design).

The sad part is that you apparently believe design is all about "something that looks good"; perpetuating the very problem that afflicts the overall profession. Add to that you're apparently unaware of the designers who studied product design who are now professional automotive designers. There are plenty of them working in the industry (e.g. the guy credited with the Nissan Urge exterior, for one). And unaware of those who were prospective car designers, but who opted out to become product designers instead (IDSA president Frank Tyneski for another). Perhaps Eric Stoddard should have studied transportation design; going to a product school certainly skewed his design sense, didn't it?

I don't know where you developed the arrogance you're putting on display by condescendingly insulting other designs, but it's unwarranted and lacks class.

Now you can fall in love with your own work and fail to learn from this; join the long list of car design wannabe's in blaming everyone but themselves for not breaking into the industry. Or not. Your choice.